Impetus, Safety, Touchback

[ElvisLives]

B33 catches a legal Team A kick 5 yards deep in his own end zone (near a sideline).  B33 attempts to advance, but while still in the end zone, fumbles the ball.  The ball rolls out of bounds at the sideline, behind B's goal line.
Ruling:

While we all know this is a touchback, I challenge any of you to point to a rule, or an AR, that allows this to be a touchback.  8-7-1 tells us that B33, by his fumble of the ball, is "...responsible for the loose ball being on, above, or behind the goal line," when it becomes dead. By rule, that should yield a safety.

I don't have my old rule books with me, but I'm fairly sure 8-7-1 hasn't changed in a very long time.  We needed the previous version of 8-7-2-b-1 to tell us that impetus could not be changed in the end zone, thus A would still be responsible for the ball being behind B's goal line, even after B fumbled (or the ball otherwise became loose) in the end zone.  Touchback.  To support the rule there was AR 8-7-2-III, which was precisely this scenario.  Ruling:  Touchback.  Great. We had rule and AR support.  As it should be.

But, around 2011, RR chose to remove the language in 8-7-2-b-1 that stated impetus couldn't be changed in the end zone, and he removed the previous AR 8-7-2-III (that AR number still exists, but I believe he just re-numbered everything that was after the previous 8-7-2-III).

So, I challenge you to find language - or an AR - that allows this down to result in a touchback.

I haven't figured out what was broken that needed to be fixed.

[centexsports]

I think this matters.   Free kick or scrimmage kick?   If it is a free kick the clock does not start until he crosses the goal line.   How can you have a safety with the clock not running?   

[ElvisLives]

I think this matters.   Free kick or scrimmage kick?   If it is a free kick the clock does not start until he crosses the goal line.   How can you have a safety with the clock not running?

Don't think you can. 

Issue 1:
The game clock starts when the ball has been legally touched, and is in the field of play, whether in player possession or loose, and has not touched the ground in B's end zone prior to touching by Team B.

Issue 2: Team B could catch the free-kicked ball in B's end zone, then fumble, with the ball traveling into the field of play.  As soon as the ball crosses the goal line (back into the field of play), the game clock would start.  Then, say, the ball is muffed back across the goal line, where it goes out of bounds.  Because of Redding's rule change, Team B is gonna get hit with a safety, (that would have just been a touchback during Adam's days).

[Legacy Zebra]

I believe you can have a safety with no time off the clock. B11 catches A’s free kick in the end zone near the right side line. Team B has set up a trick return to the left, so B11 throws a pass to B22 who is standing in his end zone near the left sideline. B11’s pass is forward and incomplete, hitting the ground 2 yards behind the goal line. This would result in a safety by penalty and the clock would never have started.

[Legacy Zebra]

Or if you want me I get really far fetched, here’s one with no foul.

Team is flagged for UNS after scoring a TD. After the try, Team A’s HC is flagged for UNS for throwing a tantrum about the first flag. So Team A kicks off from the A-10. Kicker A99 shanks the kick and it only goes 9 yards. At the A-19, A55 bats the ball backward to prevent Team B from recovering it. The batted ball goes over Team A’s goal line and goes out of bounds. Again this is a safety and the clock should never start.

Obviously it would take something extraordinary to have one, but the point is that there is no requirement for the clock to be running to have a safety.

[ElvisLives]

Or if you want me I get really far fetched, here’s one with no foul.

Team is flagged for UNS after scoring a TD. After the try, Team A’s HC is flagged for UNS for throwing a tantrum about the first flag. So Team A kicks off from the A-10. Kicker A99 shanks the kick and it only goes 9 yards. At the A-19, A55 bats the ball backward to prevent Team B from recovering it. The batted ball goes over Team A’s goal line and goes out of bounds. Again this is a safety and the clock should never start.

Obviously it would take something extraordinary to have one, but the point is that there is no requirement for the clock to be running to have a safety.

Yeah, and those rules haven't changed, so both of those would have been/would be safeties, with or without Redding's changes.
Anybody got some Tylenol?

[Magician]

Regarding the original post. Rule 8-6-1a: "It is a touchback when a kick becomes dead by rule behind the defending team's goal line and the attacking team is responsible for the ball being there." You skipped the part of 8-7-1 that defines A as being responsible for the ball being in the end zone in the first place. "The team responsible for a ball being out of bounds behind the a goal line...is the team whose player...imparts an impetus to it that forces it on, above or across the goal line." Rule 8-7-2 talks about the original impetus which actually more relevant here anyway. The kick was the original impetus and since it never left the end zone it is the one that still applies.

[Magician]

Don't think you can. 

Issue 1:
The game clock starts when the ball has been legally touched, and is in the field of play, whether in player possession or loose, and has not touched the ground in B's end zone prior to touching by Team B.

Issue 2: Team B could catch the free-kicked ball in B's end zone, then fumble, with the ball traveling into the field of play.  As soon as the ball crosses the goal line (back into the field of play), the game clock would start.  Then, say, the ball is muffed back across the goal line, where it goes out of bounds.  Because of Redding's rule change, Team B is gonna get hit with a safety, (that would have just been a touchback during Adam's days).

I don't remember the rule change, but if the B player fumbles the ball and it leaves the end zone and then returns, the fumble is now the new impetus making B responsible. If it goes out of bounds at the 1 though it comes back to the spot of the fumble (forward fumble out of bounds) and results in a touchback.

[Kalle]

Regarding the original post. Rule 8-6-1a: "It is a touchback when a kick becomes dead by rule behind the defending team's goal line and the attacking team is responsible for the ball being there." You skipped the part of 8-7-1 that defines A as being responsible for the ball being in the end zone in the first place. "The team responsible for a ball being out of bounds behind the a goal line...is the team whose player...imparts an impetus to it that forces it on, above or across the goal line." Rule 8-7-2 talks about the original impetus which actually more relevant here anyway. The kick was the original impetus and since it never left the end zone it is the one that still applies.

And you left out the last sentence "or is responsible for a loose ball being on, above or behind the goal line." Isn't a player who loses the possession "responsible" (absent any special definition in the rule book, which I don't think there is)?

It would be nice to have rule 8-7-2-b-3: "If a player imparts impetus on the ball in the end zone and the ball leaves the end zone."

[ElvisLives]

I don't remember the rule change, but if the B player fumbles the ball and it leaves the end zone and then returns, the fumble is now the new impetus making B responsible. If it goes out of bounds at the 1 though it comes back to the spot of the fumble (forward fumble out of bounds) and results in a touchback.

It wasn't so much a rule change, as editorial in nature.  Adams had interpreted the rule to, essentially, say that impetus could not be changed IN THE END ZONE.  There was an AR that was this exact scenario that made it 100% clear that the ruling for this scenario was to be a touchback.  Thus, a fumble by Team B after a COP in the end zone would not change the impetus from the original loose ball (kick/pass/fumble, which would have had to occur in the field of play).  Adams corresponded with me that it didn't matter if the loose ball from B's fumble happened to travel into the field of play, and then back again - the impetus was still from A's (pass/kick/fumble), as long as nothing changed the impetus while it was in the field of play.  So, if it subsequently went OB behind the GL, it would still be a touchback.  And, there was rule language that specifically told us that neither batting nor kicking (both illegal) in the end zone would change the original impetus, either.  So, everything was covered.  Impetus could not be changed by some action with, or on, the ball in the end zone.  Period.  Simple.  Nobody got any unfair advantage by having it this way, and Team A couldn't get a cheap safety, just because B fumbled the ball, and it just happened to bounce back-and-forth across the goal line.  Impetus was a defined action (i.e., carry, fumble, pass, kick, bat) with/on the ball IN THE FIELD OF PLAY that forced the ball into an end zone.

But, obviously, Redding didn't see it that way. This was nothing the Rules Committee initiated. And I am not aware of any game situation that may have happened that would have prompted him to make this change.  He eliminated the language regarding batting and kicking in the end zone not changing impetus.  So, now, they can.  He eliminated former AR 8-7-2-III , which was the only direct ruling that, when a  B player who caught a kick or intercepted a pass in B's end zone then fumbles the ball while still in the end zone, and the ball goes out of bounds in the end zone (directly, or otherwise, with no change of impetus), that's a touchback.  But, strict reading of the actual rules, today, would require this to be a safety.

And I didn't 'skip' anything.  The second part of that same sentence covers a ball that becomes loose in the end zone: ",...or is responsible for a loose ball being on, above or behind the goal line."  When the defending team fumbles in the end zone, they are now responsible for this loose ball being out of bounds behind on/above/behind the goal line.  It makes no reference as to where the impetus is imparted on the ball.  If the ball is loose, the last team in possession, or the team that passed/kicked/batted the ball, is responsible for the ball being loose in the end zone.  Period.  So, if that impetus was actually made in the end zone, then that team is responsible if the ball then goes OB, or otherwise becomes dead on/above/behind the goal line.  It makes no distinction as to the ball remaining in the end zone, or (while loose) traveling into the field of play, and then back again.  The impetus from whatever originally put the ball into the end zone from the field of play is now expended.  Impetus is now with the team that imparted the force on the ball while it was in the end zone.  If that is the defending team, and the ball goes directly OB behind the goal line, by this rule (without previous AR 8-7-2-III that Redding deleted), that's a safety.

Now, no one wants a fumble by a B player in his end zone that goes directly OB to be a safety.  And, I don't think anyone would, foolishly, rule that way.  But, my point is, the rule language does not support a touchback in that case.  If the Rules Committee really want to allow a fumble (or backward pass) by B after a COP in B's end zone that doesn't cross back into the field play and becomes dead in B's possession on/above/behind B's goal line to be ruled a touchback (and they should), and they really want a fumble (or backward pass) by B after a COP in B's end zone, that travels into the field of play and then back across the goal line where it becomes dead in B's possession on/above/behind B's goal line to be ruled a safety (I don't think they should, but, if that's what they want, OK), then they need to edit the rule, something like:

"The team responsible for the ball being out of bounds behind a goal line or being dead in the possession of a player on, above, or behind a goal line is the team that whose player carries the ball or imparts an impetus to it from the field of play that caused it to be on, above or across the goal line when declared dead.
When, following a change of team possession in the end zone, a subsequent loose ball travels into the field of play and the impetus remains unchanged prior to the ball becoming dead, the team responsible for the ball being dead behind the goal line is the team to whom impetus is charged to the loose ball in the end zone.   
When, following a change of team possession in the end zone, and the ball becomes dead without leaving the end zone, the team responsible for the ball being dead behind the goal line is the team that imparts an impetus to it from the field of play that causes it to be on, above or across the goal line when declared dead." 

[sj]

If this helps here it is from the 2008 book. There are no changes to the wording for responsibility or impetus compared to today.

And here is how 8-7-2-b and c read as well as the removed AR 8-7-2-III.


b. Initial impetus is considered expended and the responsibility for the ball’s progress is charged to a player:

1)   If he kicks a ball not in player possession or bats a loose ball after it strikes the ground. (Exception: The original impetus is not changed when a loose ball is batted or kicked in the end zone.) (AR 8-7-2-V)
2)   If the ball comes to rest and he gives it new impetus by any contact with it.

Exceptions:

1)   Rules 6-1-4-a and 6-3-4-a (AR 6-3-4-I-IV)
2)   The original impetus is not changed when a ball at rest in the end zone is moved when touched by an official or a player.

c. A loose ball retains it’s original status when there is new impetus.


AR 8-7-2-III – A team B player catches a kick in his end zone, then fumbles and, in attempting to recover the ball, muffs it out of bounds behind his own goal line. RULING: Touchback (Rule 8-6-1-a)

For what it's worth 8-7-2-V doesn’t apply to the play in this post

[sj]

(I don't think they should, but, if that's what they want, OK), then they need to edit the rule, something like:

"The team responsible for the ball being out of bounds behind a goal line or being dead in the possession of a player on, above, or behind a goal line is the team that whose player carries the ball or imparts an impetus to it from the field of play that caused it to be on, above or across the goal line when declared dead.
When, following a change of team possession in the end zone, a subsequent loose ball travels into the field of play and the impetus remains unchanged prior to the ball becoming dead, the team responsible for the ball being dead behind the goal line is the team to whom impetus is charged to the loose ball the end zone.   
When, following a change of team possession in the end zone, and the ball becomes dead without leaving the end zone, the team responsible for the ball being dead behind the goal line is the team that imparts an impetus to it from the field of play that causes it to be on, above or across the goal line when declared dead."
[/quote]

What would the effect be if the phrase... "or is responsible for a loose ball being on, above or behind the goal line" was just removed? Leaving it to just read:

Responsibility - ARTICLE 1. The team responsible for the ball being out of bounds behind a goal line or being dead in the possession of a player on, above or behind a goal line is the team whose player carries the ball or imparts an impetus to it that forces it on, above or across the goal line.






 

[ElvisLives]

What would the effect be if the phrase... "or is responsible for a loose ball being on, above or behind the goal line" was just removed? Leaving it to just read:

Responsibility - ARTICLE 1. The team responsible for the ball being out of bounds behind a goal line or being dead in the possession of a player on, above or behind a goal line is the team whose player carries the ball or imparts an impetus to it that forces it on, above or across the goal line.

The word “forces” implies that the impetus is imparted on the ball from the field of play, which would also mean that impetus could not be imparted on the ball in the end zone.  I’d be fine with that (as it was before Redding changed things). But, some will not like those rulings, since they preclude the possibility of the defending team getting hit with a safety if they fumble in the end zone after a COP in the end zone.

While I am not a fan of letting the defending team get stuck with a safety for fumbling in the end zone, I can accept that.  But, they need to clear up the rule language, to make it clear.  The three sentences I offer cover all three possible scenarios, leaving no doubt as to the cause and effect of impetus in each.

[Magician]

And you left out the last sentence "or is responsible for a loose ball being on, above or behind the goal line." Isn't a player who loses the possession "responsible" (absent any special definition in the rule book, which I don't think there is)?

It would be nice to have rule 8-7-2-b-3: "If a player imparts impetus on the ball in the end zone and the ball leaves the end zone."

Impetus is from the field of play into the end zone. If the ball is already in the zone and stays in the end zone then there is no new impetus. If it leaves the end zone and returns, then there is a new impetus that is applicable. Once you understand that's what the rule says you realize why your first question is not applicable and your second statement is not needed.

[Kalle]

Impetus is from the field of play into the end zone. If the ball is already in the zone and stays in the end zone then there is no new impetus. If it leaves the end zone and returns, then there is a new impetus that is applicable. Once you understand that's what the rule says you realize why your first question is not applicable and your second statement is not needed.

Yes, that is what the rules makers want, but I still agree with Elvis that the rules don't really say so any more. The only language hinting at this is the A.R. 8-5-1-X: "The impetus for the ball going into the end zone the second time is B44’s fumble."

[Joe Stack]

This is from 2017, the latest one I have on the computer I'm using, but I don't think its changed:

8-2-4-c: When a fumble or backward pass goes out of bounds behind or beyond a goal line, it is a safety or touchback depending on impetus and responsibility.

By rule, this is EITHER a safety or touchback, so how could it be a touchback if in every touchback scenario, the person fumbling turns it into a safety? In other words, the OP is suggesting that the fumble changes impetus and/or responsibility, and this rule says it doesn't.

[Kalle]

This is from 2017, the latest one I have on the computer I'm using, but I don't think its changed:

8-2-4-c: When a fumble or backward pass goes out of bounds behind or beyond a goal line, it is a safety or touchback depending on impetus and responsibility.

By rule, this is EITHER a safety or touchback, so how could it be a touchback if in every touchback scenario, the person fumbling turns it into a safety? In other words, the OP is suggesting that the fumble changes impetus and/or responsibility, and this rule says it doesn't.

I think you mean rule 7-2-4-c That applies to all fumbles and backward passes, so even if the fumble in the end zone changes impetus (which we all agree that it doesn't, if the ball remains in the end zone), a fumble from the field of play into the end zone and out of bounds there would be treated a touchback if the impetus belongs to the team attacking that end zone.

[Joe Stack]

You're right -- Rule 7 -- Sorry. Was doing a word search and going back and forth.

However, the OP said, "8-7-1 tells us that B33, by his fumble of the ball, is "...responsible for the loose ball being on, above, or behind the goal line," when it becomes dead. By rule, that should yield a safety." THUS, I disagree with your statement, "so even if the fumble in the end zone changes impetus (which we all agree that it doesn't, if the ball remains in the end zone)." It seems to me that was the idea we were trying to clear up.

Was I incorrect about that?

[Kalle]

Was I incorrect about that?

Elvis is playing devil's advocate in challenging us to find the basis in rules for the obvious ruling, which is surprisingly hard (so far I haven't been convinced).

I wonder what Shaw would answer if somebody asked him

[ElvisLives]

I wonder what Shaw would answer if somebody asked him

And that’s part of the problem.  During the Adams days, almost anybody could get a timely response directly from Adams.  Yeah, we had to put our questions in writing, in triplicate, and send them to him with a SSA-envelope for the reply.  But he always - ALWAYS - replied.  I still have those letters.  During my FBS days, I could get my coordinator to get interpretations from Adams and, later Redding. My coordinator did not discourage questions.  However, I get the sense from my contacts in other conferences, then and now, their coordinators would take such requests as being a nuisance, and would not reflect positively on that official.  Sad.  As a result, there is virtually no ability to get official interpretations from the Sec-Ed.

Redding did a lot of good things for the game, and for us, as officials.  But, the virtual disappearance of replies to questions of interpretation is one thing that, IMHO, is not good.

[Kalle]

Actually the only relevant change since 2000 has been the removal of the "no new impetus if kicked or batted in the end zone" clauses and the A.R. So, even with pre-2011 rules without the old A.R. the rules were murky on this subject.

I still do wonder what action does the last part of 8-7-1 attempt to cover...

[peterparsons]

According to my copy of Anatomy of a Game, there was a change to the impetus rule in 1990. Does anyone have rule books going back before then to compare the wording? Maybe that could help explain.

[ElvisLives]

Actually the only relevant change since 2000 has been the removal of the "no new impetus if kicked or batted in the end zone" clauses and the A.R. So, even with pre-2011 rules without the old A.R. the rules were murky on this subject.

I still do wonder what action does the last part of 8-7-1 attempt to cover...

Concur.  With the old A.R., nothing to worry about.  But, without it, strict reading would tell us, following a COP in the end zone, B's fumble or backward pass (or even a forward pass or kick) that goes OB behind the goal line, or becomes dead in B's possession in the end zone, with or without leaving the end zone and returning, would be a safety - as the pure result of the down (discounting any potential penalty).

The challenge is to prove otherwise.  Just claiming that's what it means "wouldn't hold up in court," as they say.

[ElvisLives]

According to my copy of Anatomy of a Game, there was a change to the impetus rule in 1990. Does anyone have rule books going back before then to compare the wording? Maybe that could help explain.

Yeah, I'm an old geezer.  Got books back to '72.  I'll check when I get home (from work ) shortly.

[ElvisLives]

Yeah, I'm an old geezer.  Got books back to '72.  I'll check when I get home (from work ) shortly.

OK, the change in 1990 was to provide the ‘exception’ for batting and kicking in the end zone, i.e., thereafter, batting and kicking in the end zone did not change the original impetus.  But, we know that language is now gone.